Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM vs. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens

[JTPAIN]

Hey,

Am thinking of buying one of these lenses but not sure which one - i know many of you will say 'simple. just go for the 70-300mm' but is it really such a simple decision - what are the pros and cons of each lens comparative to each other?

Many thanks

 

[briansquibb]

In my case it is the 70-300L + the 24-105L which I thow in with the 1D4 for my walkabout pack

Having a light(ish) lens makes shooting just that much easier

The 28-300 is a large lens and very conspicuous

 

[JTPAIN]

In my case it is the 70-300L + the 24-105L which I thow in with the 1D4 for my walkabout pack

I would probably be using it with a 1.6x crop factor such as the 600d - so the 17-55mm would probably be more logical than the 24-105mm.

 

[wickidwombat]

In my case it is the 70-300L + the 24-105L which I thow in with the 1D4 for my walkabout pack

I would probably be using it with a 1.6x crop factor such as the 600d - so the 17-55mm would probably be more logical than the 24-105mm.

on 1.6 crop definately the 70-300L i found the 28-300 a little too tight on the APS-H at the wide end so still carried the 16-35 and 50 f1.4 around. I sold the 28-300 because i used it mainly at 300mm
so i bought 70-200f2.8 and a 300 f4 instead.
image quality on the 28-300 is still excellent its just quite cumbersome and taking several smaller lenses is more convenient I think.

 

[Tijn]

I hear the 70-300L is as sharp as the 70-200 f/4L IS, which is very, very, very sharp for a zoom lens.
The 28-300mm is nice because of all the range in one lens, but the image quality suffers a bit. If the maximum image quality is your first priority, having two lenses cover that range (like briansquibbs suggestion) would be the best way to go.

If you prefer the versatility of having all range in just one lens, the 70-300L is a fine lens. Its image quality is not the best of Canons L lens range, but understandibly so - it's amazing how they got this much quality in a >10x zoom to begin with.

Another good consideration would be to become acquainted with the push-pull zoom mechanism that the 28-300L has, and not the 70-300L (traditional 'rotating ring' zoom). Some people hate it, but some people really like it. If you turn out to be one of those people that REALLY likes that, it'd definately be something to consider. And vice versa, if you try push-pull for a few weeks or so but really can't get used to it, then the 70-300L is your best bet.

Further notable differences (apart from the image quality) are that the 28-300 is about 60% heavier than the 70-300 (1.7kg or 3.7lbs versus 1.1kg or 2.3lbs), and that the 28-300 has an older generation IS with 3 stops improvement, vs 4 stops for the 70-300L (which is a very new lens).

 

[wickidwombat]

I hear the 70-300L is as sharp as the 70-200 f/4L IS, which is very, very, very sharp for a zoom lens.
The 28-300mm is nice because of all the range in one lens, but the image quality suffers a bit. If the maximum image quality is your first priority, having two lenses cover that range (like briansquibbs suggestion) would be the best way to go.

If you prefer the versatility of having all range in just one lens, the 70-300L is a fine lens. Its image quality is not the best of Canons L lens range, but understandibly so - it's amazing how they got this much quality in a >10x zoom to begin with.

Another good consideration would be to become acquainted with the push-pull zoom mechanism that the 28-300L has, and not the 70-300L (traditional 'rotating ring' zoom). Some people hate it, but some people really like it. If you turn out to be one of those people that REALLY likes that, it'd definately be something to consider. And vice versa, if you try push-pull for a few weeks or so but really can't get used to it, then the 70-300L is your best bet.

Further notable differences (apart from the image quality) are that the 28-300 is about 60% heavier than the 70-300 (1.7kg or 3.7lbs versus 1.1kg or 2.3lbs), and that the 28-300 has an older generation IS with 3 stops improvement, vs 4 stops for the 70-300L (which is a very new lens).

the push pull design makes it seem even heavier because the front section is very heavy so when extended the moment generated at the end you are holding from the extended weight is higher so it can wear you out quite quickly

 

[JTPAIN]

Thanks a lot

Made me think twice.

what about the 70-200mm f4 IS and the 300mm prime? would that be a better pack within a similar price range - just worrying about the variable aperture.

 

[jwong]

Thanks a lot

Made me think twice.

what about the 70-200mm f4 IS and the 300mm prime? would that be a better pack within a similar price range - just worrying about the variable aperture.

If you already have the 17-55, then a 70-xxx is a good way to go. The issue is what you plan on using it for. If you're going to be mostly outdoors where there is plenty of light, then the 70-300 makes a lot of sense. You might lose up to 2/3 of a stop up to the 200mm range, but you gain the reach from 200-300 when compared to the 70-200 f/4. The 300 prime would have better IQ, but it's another lens to carry, and it still may not be fast enough for indoor sports. If you do more indoor stuff, you might be better off with the 70-200 f/2.8 II with a teleconveter.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I actually just bought the 28-300L as a travel/walkaround lens. I'm not fussed about the weight or size - it's not significantly different than the 70-200/2.8 II or the 100-400, and I'm also comfortable with the push/pull zoom. My current 'walkaround' kit is the 24-105mm + 70-200 II, so the 28-300mm is lighter and means no lens changes - useful when I'm already juggling two kids.

The 24-105 + 70-300 L would have been another possibility, but still not lighter in total, and still requiring lens changes. Compared to that, the 28-300 isn't much slower through the range - for me, f/4 and slower generally means a flash indoors, and even f/5.6 is generally ok outside.

The only concern I have is IQ, but it looks good so far. It's a superzoom, so there's distortion - but in fact, the barreling at the wide end and pincushioning at the long end aren't even as bad as on the 24-105. Likewise, sharpness is pretty similar.

So...overall, I think the 28-300mm will make an excellent walkaround lens, for me. It helps that I also have fast lenses, if I need them.

@JTPAIN, I think not for you - I'll be using it on a 5DII where it's moderate wide angle to telephoto. On APS-C, you would lose the wide angle, making it much less useful, IMO.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hey,

Am thinking of buying one of these lenses but not sure which one - i know many of you will say 'simple. just go for the 70-300mm' but is it really such a simple decision - what are the pros and cons of each lens comparative to each other?

Many thanks

Well the 28-300 obviously covers it all but the 70-300L has better IS, better sharpness over 70-300 and it's a lot smaller and lighter. Personally I would get the 70-300L and pair it with a wide prime or maybe wide zoom, but it depends, for some the all-in-one of the 28-300 may be worth the reduced image quality and weight and size.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

In my case it is the 70-300L + the 24-105L which I thow in with the 1D4 for my walkabout pack

I would probably be using it with a 1.6x crop factor such as the 600d - so the 17-55mm would probably be more logical than the 24-105mm.

For APS-C then I would really, really favor 70-300L + something else. APS-C has amazing wide/standard zooms. Canon 15-85 IS, 17-55 IS, tamron 17-50 2.8, etc. are all very good and all give you radically wider FOV than the 28-300 would. Plus the 70-300L + one of those is still probably less total weight and you'll have much better image quality across the entire, much larger, range for sure.

That said, for some who don't shoot very wide often and quickly swithc from 28mm to 300mm and all over the place or are shooting in sand blown environments where you don't want to swap much and using only one body the 28-300 can still have a place.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thanks a lot

Made me think twice.

what about the 70-200mm f4 IS and the 300mm prime? would that be a better pack within a similar price range - just worrying about the variable aperture.

What sort of stuff do you want to shoot?